CITY OF SHORELINE

CITY OF SHORELINE

SHORELINE CITY COUNCIL

SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING

Monday, June 28, 1999

7:30 p.m.

Shoreline Conference Center

Mt. Rainier Room

PRESENT: Mayor Jepsen, Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmembers Gustafson, Hansen, King, Lee and Ransom

ABSENT: None

1. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Mayor Jepsen, who presided.

2. FLAG SALUTE/ROLL CALL

Mayor Jepsen led the flag salute. Upon roll by the City Clerk, all Councilmembers were present.

3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER

City Manager Robert Deis introduced Shoreline School District Superintendent Marlene Holayter who, in turn, introduced two Shorecrest High School students who had won the King County Municipal League’s contest on "What It Means to be a Citizen." Jennifer Kim read her poem and Beth Archer read her essay.

4. REPORTS OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

(a) Reports by Senator Darlene Fairley and Representative Carolyn Edmonds regarding the 1999 Legislative Session

Senator Darlene Fairley discussed the results of the 1999 legislative session. In particular:

she asserted that the Senate budget was "good" in the areas of human services and schools;
she explained that she had proposed an amendment to the Buildable Lands Bill to require the State to fund any change in the City’s Comprehensive Plan; advocates of the bill pushed it through the Senate in her absence, but the House stopped it; and
she said she has received assurances that nothing will be done to further reduce local taxes on bingo parlors.

Speaking on behalf of herself and Representative Ruth Kagi, Representative Carolyn Edmonds reported the following:

she warned that the buildable lands issue will come up again; the House Local Government Committee will hold a hearing on the issue this fall;
she noted that the State Department of Ecology is updating the Shoreline Master Plan, that current law requires cities to update their guidelines within 24 months of State changes and that some cities have asserted that this timeframe is too short and that the requirement represents an unfunded mandate;
she acknowledged that she and Rep. Kagi failed to obtain transportation funding for the Aurora Corridor, but she noted that Shoreline will receive approximately $600,000 over the biennium in additional funds from the local option enhancement;
she said some suburban cities perceive the enforcement of the new lower blood alcohol level as an unfunded mandate; she asked if this is an issue for Shoreline;
she advised that Shoreline will have the opportunity to apply for local grant funds established as part of the salmon recovery legislation; and
she explained that, as a result of a request by Representative Kagi, all bills that go through the Corrections Committee must now identify fiscal impacts to local jurisdictions.

Senator Fairley asked the City to advise her when staff has submitted a request for State grant funding and the legislature has not identified the request for funding. She explained that, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, she can have funding requests reconsidered. She went on to underscore that she supports Shoreline interests in her work on the Energy, Telecommunications and Technology Committee. In conclusion, Senator Fairley noted her opposition to legislation to impose sales taxes on Internet businesses.

Mayor Jepsen reiterated his appreciation for the cooperation of Senator Fairley and Representatives Edmonds and Kagi with the City during the legislative session.

In response to Mayor Jepsen, Senator Fairley expressed her hope that supporters of Initiative 695 will not obtain enough signatures to put the initiative on the ballot. If the initiative reaches the ballot, she said opponents must push the media to understand the devastating impact of the initiative at the local level.

At 8:02 p.m., Mayor Jepsen turned the gavel over to Deputy Mayor Montgomery and left the Council meeting.

Councilmember Gustafson commented on the passage of Senate Bill 96, the Internet Tax Freedom Act. If enacted, he said the legislation would impose a three-year moratorium on Internet sales taxes. He noted that a commission has formed that will propose policies and regulations after two years.

Councilmember Lee asserted the significant impact of Internet sales on small cities with downtown cores of small retail businesses. She said legislators must address electronic commerce and Internet sales taxation very carefully.

Councilmember Hansen explained his position on Internet sales and offered to work together with the legislators on this issue. He also mentioned that the tax rate on charity bingo parlors has decreased from ten percent to five percent. Senator Fairley reiterated that there will be no further cuts in that tax rate.

With regard to Initiative 695, Councilmember Hansen noted past commitments by legislators to make up any loss in sales tax equalization funds resulting from reductions in the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET). He asked about Senator Fairley and Representative Edmonds’ position on the issue. Senator Fairley said she would advocate the dedication of surplus revenues to make up for any shortfall in sales tax equalization funds resulting from reductions in MVET. Representative Edmonds said she does not know enough about the sales tax equalization system to commit to replacing any shortfalls in it. She went on to express her commitment to advocate a solution that would replace the lost income to local jurisdictions.

Mr. Deis said the City would lose $2.5 million if Initiative 695 passed into law. In response to Representative Edmonds, he agreed that the initiative will effect all cities, but he said it will have a disproportionate impact on those cities heavily reliant on sales tax equalization. He noted that Shoreline is second or third in the State in its reliance on sales tax equalization. Representative Edmonds requested a list of the other cities dependent on sales tax equalization revenues.

Mr. Deis went on to explain that Initiative 695 would require the prior approval of voters for any fee adjustments. He mentioned that the City has development, parks and recreation fees. Senator Fairley agreed that this provision would paralyze City operations.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery said State funding for economic development assistance is focused almost entirely on rural areas. Representative Edmonds noted the perspective in the legislature that Shoreline is close enough to urban areas for its residents to have access to jobs. Senator Fairley and Deputy Mayor Montgomery pointed out that the ability of individual residents to commute to jobs outside the City does not change the economic development problems of the City.

Senator Fairley said she received a letter from King County Sheriff Dave Reichert requesting a meeting to discuss the most pressing public safety issue in her district. She asked Council to identify a primary public safety issue in Shoreline.

Representative Edmonds asked if the City could identify other suburban cities with economic development problems similar to those in Shoreline. Mr. Deis agreed to provide that information.

Councilmember King suggested that staff submit courtesy copies of City applications for State grant funds to Senator Fairley and Representatives Edmonds and Kagi. She went on to note her understanding that bingo parlors oppose State limitations on the number of days that they may operate each week. Finally, she questioned whether the State considers jobs over local tax revenues in addressing economic development. Senator Fairley said the Senate focuses on average wages and unemployment rates. She reiterated the perception in the legislature that communities in King County do not have economic development problems.

Councilmember Ransom noted a statistic that 70 to 80 percent of crimes in Shoreline are drug related. He said the King County Sheriff’s Department is not willing to send personnel specializing in organized crime to suburban areas to address drug houses. He noted that the Shoreline Police Department, which includes a special four-member task force, has closed 135 drug houses and that this has affected the crime rate in Shoreline, resulting in a 20 percent drop in crime. He suggested that the Sheriff’s Department should emphasize anti-drug efforts at the grassroots level.

Next, Councilmember Ransom responded to Senator Fairley’s comment on charity bingo and clarified that the State Gambling Commission requires that charity bingo parlors return 75 percent of revenues in prizes to participants, which is like the cost of goods to a grocery store. He pointed out that a five percent earnings is good, as a grocery store is lucky to get a one percent net profit. He asked if Senator Fairley thought there would be a reduction of tax rates for private gambling businesses. Senator Fairley said she has received assurances that taxes on for-profit gambling establishments will not be reduced.

Finally, Councilmember Ransom asked why the City did not receive any of the transportation funding related to Referendum 49. Representative Edmonds noted a misconception that the legislature considered a separate list of transportation projects for funding under Referendum 49. She asserted that the legislature developed the transportation budget by consolidating all revenue streams and then developing a list of projects for funding. She suggested that City staff brief her on the Aurora Corridor project.

Councilmember Hansen and other Councilmembers thanked the legislators for their work on behalf of Shoreline.

RECESS

At 8:40 p.m., Deputy Mayor Montgomery declared a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m.

3. REPORT OF CITY MANAGER

In response to Mr. Deis, there was Council consensus in support of canceling the Regular Meeting scheduled for July 12. Mr. Deis mentioned the open house regarding Pt. Wells at 7:00 p.m. on July 27 in the Shorewood High School cafeteria.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT

(a) John Hull, 19522 Aurora Avenue N, discussed the letter that he submitted to Council regarding interactions he has had with the Shoreline Police Department. Mr. Deis promised a staff response.

6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA

Councilmember Lee moved to approve the agenda. Councilmember Gustafson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR

Councilmember Ransom moved to approve the consent calendar. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which carried 6-0, and the following items were approved:

Workshop Minutes of June 7, 1999
Dinner Meeting Minutes of June 14, 1999
Regular Meeting Minutes of June 14, 1999

Approval of Expenses and Payroll as of June 21, 1999 in the amount of $647,501.70

Ordinance No. 198 annexing certain real property commonly known as Annexation Area A-2 and establishing an effective date

Motion to authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Bi-Tech license agreement permitting other public agencies the ability to purchase software through the City license subject to conditions

Ordinance No. 199, amending Ordinance No. 184 as amended by authorizing expenditures from the General Capital Fund for a capital project to repair and relocate sewer and water lines at Richmond Beach Saltwater Park

8. ACTION ITEMS: OTHER ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS

(a) Motion to authorize the City Manager to: 1) amend the 1997 King County/City of Shoreline Parks and Recreation Interlocal Agreement; 2) sign an interlocal agreement accepting $93,543 of Open Space Reimbursement funds; 3) sign a joint cooperation agreement accepting $71,447 of Real Estate Excise Tax funds; and 4) sign funding agreements with the Federal and State governments related to the receipt and expenditure of grant funding

Mr. Deis thanked King County Councilmember Maggi Fimia for her advocacy of this project at the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC).

Kirk McKinley, Transportation Manager, reviewed the staff report.

Councilmember Gustafson moved to authorize the City Manager to: 1) amend the 1997 King County/City of Shoreline Parks and Recreation Interlocal Agreement; 2) sign an interlocal agreement accepting $93,543 of Open Space Reimbursement funds; 3) sign a joint cooperation agreement accepting $71,447 of Real Estate Excise Tax funds; and 4) sign funding agreements with the Federal and State governments related to the receipt and expenditure of grant funding. Councilmember Ransom seconded the motion.

Councilmember Lee questioned the transfer of an agency lead change through the PSRC. Mr. McKinley explained that the City and the County will draft and sign a letter to the PSRC stating that the City will be the lead agency for the project.

Responding to Councilmember Ransom’s question about ownership of the trail, Mr. McKinley explained that it is on Seattle City Light (SCL) right-of-way. The City will negotiate a use agreement but will not become the owner. He thought perhaps the reference to ownership in the existing interlocal was an error.

Mr. Deis added that at the time the interlocal was approved, King County was simultaneously negotiating with SCL on accessing the right-of-way. He said there may have been a discussion of ownership during this period.

Responding to Councilmember Gustafson, Mr. McKinley said the grant funding that Shoreline received to construct the trail was part of a regional application, with several agencies participating. Seattle also received funding for a section from 108^th Street to 129^th Street, and it has started the design process and working with neighborhoods.

Mr. McKinley distributed a map of the trail, illustrating where Shoreline’s segments will tie in with other jurisdictions. Mr. Deis added that the actual route of the trail will be reaffirmed before design starts.

Responding to Councilmember Lee, Mr. McKinley said the recruitment for the design firm will begin this week, with construction of two sections expected next spring.

A vote was taken on the motion, which carried 6 - 0, and the City Manager was authorized to: 1) amend the 1997 King County/City of Shoreline Parks and Recreation Interlocal Agreement; 2) sign an interlocal agreement accepting $93,543 of Open Space Reimbursement funds; 3) sign a joint cooperation agreement accepting $71,447 of Real Estate Excise Tax funds; and 4) sign funding agreements with the Federal and State governments related to the receipt and expenditure of grant funding.

(b) Motion to approve Resolution No. 154 adopting the Revised City of Shoreline Personnel Policies

Councilmember Ransom moved to postpone discussion of this item to a workshop. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion.

Councilmember Ransom noted that most City Councilmembers were out of town last week and so did not have sufficient time to review the materials. He pointed out that the revisions are substantial.

A vote was taken on the motion, which failed 3 - 3, with Councilmembers King, Lee and Ransom voting in the affirmative.

Mr. Deis explained that the personnel policies are extremely important to employees because there are no union agreements in Shoreline. He said the challenge is to strike a balance between giving flexibility to managers while providing the employees with adequate protections.

Marci Wright, Human Resources Director, explained that the current policies were adopted in September 1996. After three years of experience with them, several areas have been identified for clarification and some new policies have been added. This is not unusual for personnel policies, which tend to be living documents needing periodic updates. She said many policies were simply edited for clarity and elimination of redundancies. Noting that employees expect the policies to provide predictability, stability, equity, and consistency of treatment, she emphasized that managers need flexibility to ensure that they are able to operate their areas of responsibility.

Continuing, Ms. Wright explained there was an extensive internal process, including review by an employee committee (with representatives from all departments from different levels of responsibility) and the Management Team. When the employee committee and Management Team reached consensus, the document was put out for review by all employees, who had an opportunity to raise issues and ask questions.

Councilmember King moved approval of Resolution No. 154. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion.

Councilmember Ransom had very serious concerns about several sections in the proposed revisions. He began with Section 4.13, "Personnel Files." He provided some history, noting that detailed information based on State law was included here to make clear to both employees and the public what they had access to and what they did not. This language was carefully negotiated by the City Attorney, Tim Sullivan, and the Municipal Research and Services Center attorneys. Councilmember Ransom felt the statement "personnel files are kept confidential to the maximum extent permitted by law" suggests the exclusion of public access. He believed that striking the current language loses the clarity originally intended.

He specifically referred to the language on page 115 of the Council packet: "State law (RCW 42.17.310) exempts information contained in an employee’s personnel file to the extent that disclosure would violate the employee’s right to privacy. What constitutes a violation of a person’s right to privacy is defined as the disclosure of information about the person that would be ‘highly offensive to a reasonable person,’ and ‘is not of legitimate concern to the public’ (RCW 42.17.255). The following information is considered public information: job classification; pay; tenure; prior employment history, including names of employers, titles or job classifications, duties and responsibilities; education, including the name of institutions attended, dates attended, and degrees obtained; and occupational licensing. Except for routine verifications of employment, no information from an employee’s personnel file will be released to the public, including the press, without a simple written request for specific information. This request may be made by fax. The employee will be informed by the City Clerk’s Office that access was granted under the laws regulating public disclosure. Exceptions, such as providing information to state unemployment agencies, both federal and state investigators and the like, may be made by Human Resources with the approval of the City Manager."

Ms. Wright responded that there is a great deal of State law and case law on personnel files and on public access to them. The City’s policy is to comply with the law. However, this area changes, and it is greatly defined by case law. Therefore, staff felt that the codification of current law in the policies could result in conflicts if there were to be changes to the State law.

Mr. Deis added that personnel rules can reflect either a prescriptive approach or a more generalized approach. He said, based on his experience with human resources issues, he preferred the more general approach, which would encourage an individual who wishes to access a personnel file to go to the Human Resources Department.

Councilmember Ransom agreed that the law changes, but only every three to five years, so it would not be difficult to amend the policies accordingly.

Councilmember Gustafson commented that the Mukilteo School District recently undertook the same process of rewriting its policies and took the same approach of streamlining and eliminating redundancies such as the repetition of State laws. He agreed with the staff approach to eliminate verbiage that is difficult to interpret.

Councilmember Ransom pointed out that the appropriate Revised Code of Washington section is not even enumerated for reference. Councilmember Gustafson supported the simpler format, as did Deputy Mayor Montgomery.

Councilmember Gustafson suggested one small change to the policies: that the language in Section 9.01 say "resigning employee" rather than "employee resigning." Council and staff concurred with this change.

Councilmember Gustafson reiterated his support for the revisions, noting that if specific issues come up in the future, the policies can be revisited at that time.

Continuing with his concerns, Councilmember Ransom referred to Section 8.15, "Complaint Resolution Procedure, Step 3." He noted that a Council committee originally discussed this issue in extraordinary detail with the goal of creating a procedure that would alleviate the need of employees for collective bargaining. It developed a process whereby an independent body would provide employees with a grievance procedure equivalent to what they would have had under collective bargaining to protect them from arbitrary action by management or the City Council. He said he preferred a civil service or personnel appeals board but because of court decisions giving collective bargaining preference, the Council committee chose to use a grievance process with each party picking an arbitrator and those two picking the third. The revised policy eliminates the intention of this process and leaves the final decision to the City Manager.

Ms. Wright agreed that fairness to employees is paramount. She said the proposal does not change the current policy, under which the City Manager makes the final decision. It simply eliminates the recommendation by an employee committee. There was a concern that the committee approach tends to put employees in a very awkward situation and raises privacy concerns when employees are privy to sensitive personnel issues.

Mr. Deis said a grievance is almost always resolved before it gets to the step of a decision by the City Manager. He confirmed the awkwardness of having employees involved in judging fellow employees. He pointed out that no employee raised a concern about the process as proposed. Ms. Wright added that this was specifically discussed with the employee committee.

Moving on, Councilmember Ransom referred to Section 4.01, "Selection," noting that specific statements to clarify the selection process have been eliminated. He said at the time the personnel policies were adopted, the procedures outlined in this section were not being followed. Ms. Wright responded that this was an editorial revision and no substantive change in hiring practices is intended. Mr. Deis noted that professional managers know how to do their job in the selection process. Councilmember Ransom felt the expectations of how the job should be done should be retained.

Deputy Mayor Montgomery felt the ability of managers should be respected.

Councilmember Ransom said the section related to drugs and alcohol has been substantially broadened. He was concerned about over-doing the regulations. He referred to the City of Bremerton’s random drug testing of all employees as an example of overdoing. He felt the tone in this section is excessively negative, mentioning the prohibition of even a glass of wine with dinner if the employee has a night meeting.

Ms. Wright said there is no proposal for random drug testing. The substantive change is that a City employee should not consume alcohol during their work day. She said this proposal came from the employee committee.

Continuing, Councilmember Ransom referred to Section 8.08.D, "Workplace Violence," asking for specific illustrations of "aggressive behavior" and "offensive acts." He also said there should be a definition of "insubordination" in Section 8.10.

Ms. Wright said employees were also concerned about this and a definition was added in the "Definitions" section. Councilmember Ransom suggested the addition of a cross-reference in this section to that definition. Council and staff concurred with this change.

Councilmember Ransom referred to Section 5.07, "Classification and Compensation Plan," noting that a sentence was stricken saying that "salaries may be granted a COLA at the discretion of the City Council."

Ms. Wright said this was intended to be an editorial change, rather than a substantive change to how budgets are reviewed. Councilmember Ransom felt that since all the current language is stricken, it must be substantive.

Mr. Deis explained that individual salaries are not reviewed during the budget process. Instead, the City looks at what other cities are planning to give as Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) with the goal of staying consistent with the median of the labor market.

Councilmember Ransom commented that Section 5.11, "Educational Reimbursement Program," and 5.12, "Telecommuting Policy," are new sections that have not been debated or discussed by the Council. He felt Council should have been given an opportunity to consider these sections before they appeared in the policies.

Councilmember Lee felt these changes would contribute to the quality of the workplace. She asked that Councilmember Ransom only discuss sections where he would propose a change.

Councilmember Ransom referred to Section 8.13, "Corrective Action Procedure Step 3," asking for a definition of exempt employees. Ms. Wright responded that Human Resources maintains a list of exempt employees. She said exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) are those in professional, administrative, and supervisory positions. Councilmember Ransom noted that unpaid suspensions for exempt employees are in increments of work weeks. Ms. Wright said this is based on restrictions imposed by the FLSA.

MEETING EXTENSION

At 10:00 p.m., Councilmember Hansen moved to extend the meeting until 10:20 p.m. Councilmember King seconded the motion, which carried 5 - 1, with Councilmember Lee dissenting.

Councilmember Ransom moved to amend Section 4.13, "Personnel Files," by retaining the current language. Councilmember Hansen seconded the motion, which failed 1 - 5, with Councilmember Ransom voting in the affirmative.

Councilmember Ransom referred to Section 8.15, "Complaint Resolution Procedure." He said he did not wish to retain the current language because the original intent was to have grievances referred to an outside group. He moved that employees have the right to a grievance process with arbitration, as they would have under collective bargaining. Councilmember Lee seconded the motion.

Responding to Deputy Mayor Montgomery, Councilmember Ransom stated that this is not costly and that most governmental agencies have personnel appeal boards or collective bargaining.

Mr. Deis said in his experience arbitration has been a total failure. He said if Council is considering Councilmember Ransom’s motion, he would like to be able to bring back additional options to the one proposed.

Responding to Councilmember Lee, Councilmember Ransom clarified that he proposed a grievance procedure for employees similar to what they would have under collective bargaining. This would be an additional step to those proposed.

Councilmember Hansen offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted, that if the motion passes, the rest of the document could be adopted tonight subject to a rewrite of this paragraph.

Clarifying for Councilmember King, Mr. Deis stated that in the proposed policy the employee’s last step after a decision by the City Manager would be the courts. The argument could be made that judicial review is a form of binding arbitration. He added that when a grievance arises, the procedure may work either to resolve the problem or to create an adversarial situation with a winner and loser. In his experience, the willingness of the employee and management to resolve the problem depends on the last step. With arbitration, employees and sometimes management ask for more than they want, expecting that through arbitration they will get something less than that. He said the focus in the policies is to resolve the issue in the beginning rather than waiting for arbitration.

Ms. Wright reiterated that the grievance process was not an issue with employees in terms of retaining the current language or creating an arbitration policy.

Mr. Deis said if this section, or any section, presents problems, he would return to Council for a change. He also said that the City always has the option of bringing in an outside investigator to determine the facts of a specific grievance.

Councilmember Hansen did not support the current language of this section. He did not think employees should be part of the grievance committee. He also questioned whether the amendment undermines the City Manager’s ability to administrate.

It was clarified that the motion is to add the concept of a grievance arbitration process as an additional step after the City Manager’s decision, with the language to be crafted by staff and brought back for Council review. A vote was taken on the motion to amend, which failed 1 - 5, with Councilmember Ransom voting in the affirmative.

A vote was taken on the motion to approve Resolution No. 154, which carried 6 - 0 and the Revised City of Shoreline Personnel Policies were adopted.

9. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENT: none

10. ADJOURNMENT

At 10:18 p.m., Deputy Mayor Montgomery adjourned the meeting.

____________________
Sharon Mattioli
City Clerk